Baldev Rai @ Baldev Roy vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 1918 Patna

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
             CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33985 of 2020
  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-297 Year-2020 Thana- SAMASTIPUR MUFFASIL District-
                                       Samastipur
======================================================

Baldev Rai @ Baldev Roy, aged about 50 years, S/o Late Nandan Rai R/o village- Rupauli, Banghara, P.S.- Musarigharari, District- Samastipur

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rana Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Tapeshwar Sharma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 09-04-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Rana Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel

for the petitioner and Mr. Tapeshwar Sharma, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the

State.

3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

Samastipur (Muffasil) PS Case No. 297 of 2020 dated 10.07.2020,

instituted under Sections 302/120B of the Indian Penal Code and

27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

4. The allegation against the petitioner is of being

involved in the killing of the deceased, Manmohan Jha.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as

per the FIR itself the only reference to the petitioner is that the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33985 of 2020 dt.09-04-2021

deceased had earlier told informant that the petitioner wanted to

get him killed. Learned counsel submitted that in the FIR it has

been stated that there were four accused who had come on two

motorcycles and they had opened fired which ultimately killed

Manmohan Jha and those persons were not the petitioner. It was

submitted that neither any motive nor any role has been assigned

to the petitioner and only on suspicion he has been made an

accused. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has no

criminal antecedent. It was further submitted that the petitioner

also had no enmity, either with Manmohan Jha or even the

informant Keshav Kumar.

6. Learned APP submitted that in the FIR it has clearly

been stated that the deceased had told the informant of his

apprehension that the petitioner would get him killed and one of

the persons who actually took part in the killing was the son of the

petitioner. It was submitted that the son of the petitioner had even

stated to co-accused Sonu Jha that they had taken revenge of his

father against the deceased. Learned counsel submitted that the

petitioner does not claim any enmity with the informant and, thus,

there is no reason for him to have falsely implicated him and what

he had said about the petitioner that the deceased himself had told Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33985 of 2020 dt.09-04-2021

him that the petitioner wanted to get him killed, cannot be said to

be false and also cannot be brushed aside, at least at this stage.

7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court

is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

9. However, on prayer made by learned counsel for the

petitioner, it is observed that if the petitioner appears before the

Court below and prays for bail, within four weeks from today, the

same shall be considered on its own merits, in accordance with

law, without being prejudiced by the present order.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

Anjani/-

AFR/NAFR U T